MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195469103 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.1c03460

Quantitative Point-of-Care Colorimetric Assay Modeling Using a Handheld Colorimeter

2021· article· en· W3195469103 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristen Abels, Elizabeth M. Salvo‐Halloran, Dawn White, M. Monsur Ali, Nisha Rani Agarwal, Vincent Leung, Muntakim Ali, Mariam Sidawi, Alfredo Capretta, John D. Brennan, Jake Nease, Carlos D. M. Filipe

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsColorimeterAnalyteMobile deviceColorimetryPoint of careComputer scienceChromatographyChemistryBiological system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorimetric assays typically offer a rapid and convenient method to assess analytes that span healthcare monitoring to water quality testing. However, such tests can only provide qualitative results when employed in resource-limited settings or require bulky and expensive equipment such as lab spectrophotometers to allow quantitative measurements. In this paper, we report on the use of a handheld colorimeter to quantitatively determine the concentration of analytes in a manner that is independent of ambient lighting or initial sample color. The method combines the response of the sensor with first-principles modeling that better describes the nature of the assay compared to linear-in-parameters regression modeling that is typically performed in other studies. This method was successfully demonstrated using a number of colorimetric assays: (1) determination of solution pH using a universal indicator, (2) quantification of the DNase presence using a DNA-gold nanoparticle assay, and (3) quantification of the concentration of the antibiotic tetracycline using a cell-based assay.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207